John Baymore on sat 22 may 99
------------------
It is interesting how the focus of an original post is lost over time in
these discussions. Sort of like the kids game of =22telephone=22. Line up =
a
group and whisper a statement to one person and have it whispered person-to
person-down the line. What comes out at the other end of the line is
usually not much like the original =3Cg=3E.
The center of the original discussion was that electric kilns do have
significant environmental impacts, and are not somehow removed from energy
consumption, resource depletion, pollution and so on, based on the
impression from a post that gas kilns were somehow =22worse=22 =
environmentally.
Wood kilns put out particulates. Reduction gas kilns spew carbon
monoxide. Electric kilns are quite inefficient in energy use. Each type
has it's impacts...... THAT is what is important to keep in mind.
Which type of kiln is WORSE? You can argue that along with angel counts on
pins =3Cg=3E. The US EPA could spend a few billion =24 on the question and =
maybe
quantify a few answers a bit tighter =3Cwg=3E.
With wood, oil, and gas kilns it is easy to see some of the environmental
impacts....they are right in front of you for contemplation every time you
fire. An electric kiln however easily lends itself to having the user
inadvertantly overlook any such issues. It is easy to ignore the real
impacts with that seemingly innocous =22magic=22 device.
The main issue in this whole thing is that it is important to understand
that electric kilns are not somehow =22squeeky clean=22.
If we fire at all, we all consume resources and pollute to one degree or
another. We each have to decide if our art is worth it in the cosmic
balance of things. As pollution issues and energy consumption issues
become ever more in the public consciousness (sp?), at some point in the
future we may have outside regulators deciding if our art is worth it.
For me, it cerainly is.
Best,
..............................john
John Baymore
River Bend Pottery
22 Riverbend Way
Wilton, NH 03086 USA
603-654-2752
JBaymore=40compuserve.com
John.Baymore=40GSD-CO.COM
=22Earth, Water, and Fire climbing kiln firing workshop Aug. 20-29,1999=22
Ikiru on mon 24 may 99
------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: John Baymore =3CJBaymore=40compuserve.com=3E
=3E The center of the original discussion was that electric kilns do have
=3E significant environmental impacts,
I call it the =22toilet flush syndrome=22: Just because the
impact is removed, folks think electric is cleaner.
Part of my electricity comes from nuclear powerplants. This
type of energy is the dirtiest of them all.
Wood as fuel can be the cleanest, if you plant and grow your own
trees for fuel. Growing trees takes carbon out of the air and because
you leave almost a third of the tree in the ground as roots, there is a
net reduction of carbon in the air.
If anybody is really worried about air pollution, I suggest
getting rid of your car, and use a push mower on your lawn.
/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com
=A7 http://hachiko.com
=22The significant problems we face...cannot be solved by the
same level of thinking that created them.=22 =7E Einstein
Anne Hunt on tue 25 may 99
I think studies are like statistics - they can say almost whatever you want
them to say...howsomever, one of those was done recently to address the
"trees make oxygen" issue and find out what the net balance could be
world-wide (study was done in Canada, I think).
The upshop was that the amount of leaf pack, mulch, decaying materials,
et al, around trees (esp. the larger forests) kicks off sufficient CO to
negate the amount of oxygen that the trees generate. Net result,
significant oxygen loss/ozone depletion. Bummer!
Went to the WPA show/Gallery at Seattle Center with a partner-in-crime
last Friday. Wood-fired pieces so beautiful that I ached looking at
them...thought "Boy, I'd like to do that", realizing that I could never
justify it to myself--- the price tag would be too high
If I planted a little tree every time I gas-bisqued and raku'd, I'd run
out of "acreage" July 2001...
Just thoughts,
anne in sequim
Lee Love on wed 26 may 99
------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: Anne Hunt =3Cahunt=40tenforward.com=3E
=3E The upshop was that the amount of leaf pack, mulch, decaying
materials,
=3E et al, around trees (esp. the larger forests) kicks off sufficient CO to
=3E negate the amount of oxygen that the trees generate.
You are forgetting about the part of the tree that is under the ground in
the form of roots. This is released much more slowly and can even become
fossil fuels.
If you want to make up for a gas raku firing, don't drive your car
for a couple days a week or turn your thermostat down in the winter and up
in the summer. Don't mow with a gas lawn mower, use a push mower or use
something other than grass for lawn covering.
/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com
=A7 http://hachiko.com
=22The significant problems we face...cannot be solved by the
same level of thinking that created them.=22 =7E Einstein
Kay Ellis on wed 26 may 99
------------------
Dear Kiln Meisters,
In the next few years I will be relocating to Far West Texas where the
supply of firewood is, needless to say, not plentiful. We are planning to
install solar collectors to meet most of our electric needs and I was
wondering if this is a practical source of power for an electric kiln.
Anyone been there, done that?
k
-----Original Message-----
From: Ikiru =3Cikiru=40kami.com=3E
To: CLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU =3CCLAYART=40LSV.UKY.EDU=3E
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 8:41 AM
Subject: Saving the world: Gas vs. electric
=3E----------------------------Original message----------------------------
=3E------------------
=3E----- Original Message -----
=3EFrom: John Baymore =3CJBaymore=40compuserve.com=3E
=3E
=3E=3E The center of the original discussion was that electric kilns do have
=3E=3E significant environmental impacts,
=3E
=3E I call it the =22toilet flush syndrome=22: Just because the
=3Eimpact is removed, folks think electric is cleaner.
=3E
=3E Part of my electricity comes from nuclear powerplants. This
=3Etype of energy is the dirtiest of them all.
=3E
=3E Wood as fuel can be the cleanest, if you plant and grow your own
=3Etrees for fuel. Growing trees takes carbon out of the air and because
=3Eyou leave almost a third of the tree in the ground as roots, there is a
=3Enet reduction of carbon in the air.
=3E
=3E If anybody is really worried about air pollution, I suggest
=3Egetting rid of your car, and use a push mower on your lawn.
=3E
=3E/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=3E=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com
=3E=A7 http://hachiko.com
=3E=22The significant problems we face...cannot be solved by the
=3Esame level of thinking that created them.=22 =7E Einstein
=3E
NakedClay@aol.com on wed 26 may 99
In a message dated 5/24/99 6:50:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ikiru@kami.com
writes:
> Wood as fuel can be the cleanest, if you plant and grow your own
> trees for fuel. Growing trees takes carbon out of the air and because
> you leave almost a third of the tree in the ground as roots, there is a
> net reduction of carbon in the air.
------------------------------------
I nominate wind power and solar power, as the cleanest (albiet expensive)
sources of electrical energy. There are some locations on the planet where
trees don't grow, but the wind blows strong daily, and the sun shines nearly
year 'round.
Milton NakedClay@AOL.COM
Yucca Valley, CA
One such place where the wind blows daily, and the sun shines nearly as often!
Ray Aldridge on wed 26 may 99
At 09:27 AM 5/25/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>I think studies are like statistics - they can say almost whatever you want
>them to say...howsomever, one of those was done recently to address the
>"trees make oxygen" issue and find out what the net balance could be
>world-wide (study was done in Canada, I think).
> The upshop was that the amount of leaf pack, mulch, decaying materials,
>et al, around trees (esp. the larger forests) kicks off sufficient CO to
>negate the amount of oxygen that the trees generate. Net result,
>significant oxygen loss/ozone depletion. Bummer!
I really don't know anything about this, but doesn't this sort of fly in
the face of the fossil record? Wouldn't the forests of the Carboniferous
Period have sucked all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, since they
represented a far bigger biomass than present day forests? Hey, maybe
that's what happened to the dinosaurs. Choked out by the trees. (Yeah, I
know I'm on the wrong end of the scale.) But seriously, didn't this period
see the emergence of lungfish and amphibians, whose evolution would have
been hampered by a low oxygen level?
> Went to the WPA show/Gallery at Seattle Center with a partner-in-crime
>last Friday. Wood-fired pieces so beautiful that I ached looking at
>them...thought "Boy, I'd like to do that", realizing that I could never
>justify it to myself--- the price tag would be too high
> If I planted a little tree every time I gas-bisqued and raku'd, I'd run
>out of "acreage" July 2001...
>
But, since most woodburners use scrap that will either be burned or left to
rot (oxygen and ozone depletion, right?) then you might as well get some
beautiful pots from the process. I'd think you could just drive around the
corner of the mountain from the Sequim Desert up to the Forks Hellhole and
get all the scrap you'd ever need. (I mean no offense to any web-footed
residents of Forks who love their fair city. Just kidding, really.)
Ray-- who wishes he'd acted on an impulse to move to Sequim 15 years ago,
when it would have been a lot easier.
amy parker on thu 27 may 99
Ray - Actually the flora is what puts the oxygen INTO the air! Trees etc
suck out the carbon, giving you that carbon-bearing biomass & fossil
fuels.
I vote for hydro-electric power. We have a friend who is tapping his own
waterfall in western NC & is completely off-grid. Not sure he has enough
for a kiln yet, but he isn't done & it's a BIG waterfall!
>I really don't know anything about this, but doesn't this sort of fly in
>the face of the fossil record? Wouldn't the forests of the Carboniferous
>Period have sucked all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, since they
>represented a far bigger biomass than present day forests? Hey, maybe
>that's what happened to the dinosaurs. Choked out by the trees. (Yeah, I
>know I'm on the wrong end of the scale.) But seriously, didn't this period
>see the emergence of lungfish and amphibians, whose evolution would have
>been hampered by a low oxygen level?
>Ray-- who wishes he'd acted on an impulse to move to Sequim 15 years ago,
>when it would have been a lot easier.
>
>
amy parker Lithonia, GA
amyp@sd-software.com
dave morrison on thu 27 may 99
now if we could just fire an electric salt...... by the way, i heard this
yesterday, dont know if its true. an average swimming pool gives off more
chlorine per day than an average salt firing. ??????
-----Original Message-----
From: NakedClay@aol.com
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: Saving the world: Gas vs. electric
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>In a message dated 5/24/99 6:50:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ikiru@kami.com
>writes:
>
>> Wood as fuel can be the cleanest, if you plant and grow your own
>> trees for fuel. Growing trees takes carbon out of the air and
because
>> you leave almost a third of the tree in the ground as roots, there is a
>> net reduction of carbon in the air.
>------------------------------------
>I nominate wind power and solar power, as the cleanest (albiet expensive)
>sources of electrical energy. There are some locations on the planet where
>trees don't grow, but the wind blows strong daily, and the sun shines
nearly
>year 'round.
>
>Milton NakedClay@AOL.COM
>
>Yucca Valley, CA
>One such place where the wind blows daily, and the sun shines nearly as
often!
>
Randall Moody on fri 28 may 99
> I really don't know anything about this, but doesn't this sort of fly in
> the face of the fossil record? Wouldn't the forests of the Carboniferous
> Period have sucked all the oxygen out of the atmosphere, since they
> represented a far bigger biomass than present day forests? Hey, maybe
> that's what happened to the dinosaurs. Choked out by the trees. (Yeah, I
> know I'm on the wrong end of the scale.) But seriously, didn't this
period
> see the emergence of lungfish and amphibians, whose evolution would have
> been hampered by a low oxygen level?
It is my understanding that the majority of oxygen comes from the
ocean. Since the oceans covered a larger area during that time the oxygen
level would have been higher.
Ray Aldridge on fri 28 may 99
At 12:48 PM 5/26/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>------------------
>Dear Kiln Meisters,
>
>In the next few years I will be relocating to Far West Texas where the
>supply of firewood is, needless to say, not plentiful. We are planning to
>install solar collectors to meet most of our electric needs and I was
>wondering if this is a practical source of power for an electric kiln.
>Anyone been there, done that?
>
I'm no expert, but unless you have an unlimited budget, this is probably
not feasible. It's not just the cost of a massive array, but also the cost
of a massive battery bank. To give you an idea, most people who generate
their own photovoltaic power do not expect to run their refrigerator on it.
They acquire a propane refrigerator, and this would probably be your most
practical fuel for a kiln, if you're not going to have natural gas. No
shortage of propane in West Texas.
You might be wrong about the wood shortage, if you're relocating to a
developing area. My first kilns were woodfired, in Las Vegas. I collected
construction offcuts, and while this might be too time-consuming for a big
kiln, it's available, and saves landfill space.
I should add that you shouldn't burn pressure-treated lumber, which
contains nasty stuff. But most of the wood in a stick-built house is not
treated, and it's easy to tell the difference.
Ray
Lee Love on fri 28 may 99
------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: amy parker =3Camyp=40sd-software.com=3E
=3E I vote for hydro-electric power.
Amy, hasn't this put a dent in the salmon population in the NW? They
can't get past the dams to spawn.
Every damn thing effects everything else. :=5E) In Buddhism, we
call it interdependent co-origination.
Again, I think if we are really worried about the air, we need to
get rid of gasoline powered cars and central heating. The potter's kiln,
what ever kind it is, doesn't have a fraction of the impact that the
gasoline powered automobile does.
/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com
=A7 http://hachiko.com
=22The significant problems we face...cannot be solved by the
same level of thinking that created them.=22 =7E Einstein
Lee Love on fri 28 may 99
------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: =3CNakedClay=40aol.com=3E
=3E I nominate wind power and solar power, as the cleanest (albiet
expensive)
=3E sources of electrical energy. There are some locations on the planet
where
=3E trees don't grow, but the wind blows strong daily, and the sun shines
nearly
=3E year 'round.
Milton, in Minnesota, we get about 1 percent of our power from windpower.
The plains are almost as good as the ocean coasts. It would be nice if
we could replace our 5=25 of energy from nuclear plants with windpower as
the nukes are put out of service.
There was also a plan to create tree groves next to powerplants
using a type of tree that matures in 5 years. Fuel like this actually
creates cleaner air and adds diversity for different flora and fauna. I
am not sure what happened with it. It was part of a plan to make
Minnesota =22energy self sufficient.=22
/(o=5C=A7 Lee In Saint Paul, Minnesota USA =B0
=5Co)/=A7 mailto:Ikiru=40Kami.com
=A7 http://hachiko.com
=22The significant problems we face...cannot be solved by the
same level of thinking that created them.=22 =7E Einstein
dave morrison on sun 30 may 99
curious. about the salt vapor info. i was alway under the impression that
it was rather toxic stuff. osha was all over the salt at bemidji state a
few years back. all though they didnt find anything to cause them to shut
it down. just couldnt fire it in the day time anymore.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nils Lou
To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
Date: Saturday, May 29, 1999 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Saving the world: Gas vs. electric
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
dave, you imply that the average salt firing gives off significant amounts
of chlorine. in fact, it is hardly measurable. 99% of stack effluent from
salting is salt water vapor. just what mom says is good for a stuffy nose.
as for ssalting in electric--it is done routinely. Nils
On Thu, 27 May 1999, dave morrison wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> now if we could just fire an electric salt...... by the way, i heard this
> yesterday, dont know if its true. an average swimming pool gives off more
> chlorine per day than an average salt firing. ??????
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NakedClay@aol.com
> To: CLAYART@LSV.UKY.EDU
> Date: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 11:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Saving the world: Gas vs. electric
>
>
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >In a message dated 5/24/99 6:50:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ikiru@kami.com
> >writes:
> >
> >> Wood as fuel can be the cleanest, if you plant and grow your own
> >> trees for fuel. Growing trees takes carbon out of the air and
> because
> >> you leave almost a third of the tree in the ground as roots, there is
a
> >> net reduction of carbon in the air.
> >------------------------------------
> >I nominate wind power and solar power, as the cleanest (albiet expensive)
> >sources of electrical energy. There are some locations on the planet
where
> >trees don't grow, but the wind blows strong daily, and the sun shines
> nearly
> >year 'round.
> >
> >Milton NakedClay@AOL.COM
> >
> >Yucca Valley, CA
> >One such place where the wind blows daily, and the sun shines nearly as
> often!
> >
>
Ray Aldridge on sun 30 may 99
At 10:46 PM 5/27/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray - Actually the flora is what puts the oxygen INTO the air! Trees etc
>suck out the carbon, giving you that carbon-bearing biomass & fossil
>fuels.
>
The previous poster was saying the opposite, sort of. Look back up the
thread.
>I vote for hydro-electric power. We have a friend who is tapping his own
>waterfall in western NC & is completely off-grid. Not sure he has enough
>for a kiln yet, but he isn't done & it's a BIG waterfall!
>
I wish him well, though usually to get a reasonable year-round flow, you
have to impound the source. In most places, including WNC, the flow of
waterfalls varies widely from wet season to dry season. But if he's
willing to fire only in the wet season, then I hereby anoint him an
Ecologically Blameless Potter.
Folks who think that hydro power in the large scale industrial sense is
ecologically blameless haven't done the research. Remember that in order
to impound a power-generating reservoir, you have to kill a free-flowing
river. The damage is greater than the purely aesthetic loss-- destruction
of unique niches, the submergence of biomass that will then generate a lot
of greenhouse gasses, sedimentation, eutrophication, and so on.
I still think natural gas is the least destructive way to fire. But I'm
far from blameless myself, since I fire with gas, oil, and electricity.
Ray
| |
|
